Committed sin in the flesh

  • Thread starter Thread starter BelovedJohn
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

BelovedJohn

Guest
I have read from kofc.org/un/en/catechism/index.html# that Jesus “committed sin in the flesh.” Is this just a typo error?
602 Consequently, St. Peter can formulate the apostolic faith in the divine plan of salvation in this way: “You were ransomed from the futile ways inherited from your fathers… with the precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb without blemish or spot. He was destined before the foundation of the world but was made manifest at the end of the times for your sake.” 402 Man’s sins, following on original sin, are punishable by death. 403 By sending his own Son in the form of a slave, in the form of a fallen humanity, on account of sin, God “made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.” 404
Click to expand...
404 2 Cor 5:21; cf. Phil 2:7; Rom 8:3.
Click to expand...
CITED TEXT :
Click to expand...
Philippians 2:7
Click to expand...
but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.
Click to expand...
Romans 8:3
Click to expand...
For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do: sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he committed sin in the flesh
Click to expand...
 
A very deep question. So in a deeper understanding of Rom 8:3 ''For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do: sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he committed sin in the flesh ‘’ God is showing us a crucial aspect of Christ. Firstly that He became flesh, which, to the angels and humans, appeared sinful. This is why whenever Jesus asked ‘‘he who is without sin…’’ He is showing us what sin is. So to those whom viewed Him at the time He appeared sinful. Yet He wasn’t. He was innocent, sinless, without reproach. The Lamb of the world.
Now keeping the above in mind:
Consider the part you are having the most trouble reconciling. ‘‘For he committed sin in the flesh’’. F
Firstly, to consider the above, understanding of what sin is, is helpful. Sin is a turning away from God. Now could the Divine nature turn away from Himself? No. But the human nature could become unaware of it. This is sin. This is why He said ‘‘My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?’’. Because His human Spirit lost awareness of His divine. A separation (in perception).
 
Romans 8:3 What the Law could not do because of the weakness of human nature, God did, sending his own Son in the same human nature as any sinner to be a sacrifice for sin, and condemning sin in that human nature.
 
:confused: I have:

Romans 8:3: “For what the law, weakened by the flesh, was powerless to do, this God has done, by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for the sake of sin, he condemned sin in the flesh.”
 
Check different translations of Romans 8:3 to get a better idea of the meaning.
 
BelovedJohn said:
I have read from kofc.org/un/en/catechism/index.html# that Jesus “committed sin in the flesh.” Is this just a typo error?
Click to expand...
From the interlinear ISA program:

Rom. 8:3 - The for unable of the law, in which it was infirm through the flesh, the God of the of-Self/Him Son sending in likeness of flesh of sin, and about (concerning) sin, condemns the sin in the flesh.

Just did a check on the “about/concerning” (it didn’t seem to ‘fit’) and the base of that word “peri” (G4012) is G4008, peran :

"Apparently accusative case of an obsolete derivative of peiro (to “pierce”) through, as adverb or preposition, i.e. across.

I know it is only a ‘base word’ and out of (perhaps) intent of the main word, but it’s interesting, to me, to read it as,

Rom. 8:3 - The for unable of the law, in which it was infirm through the flesh, the God of the of-Self/Him Son sending in likeness of flesh of sin; and piercing sin, condemns the sin in the flesh.

Pamela
 
Along these lines–when Jesus braided the cords into a whip and overturned the money changers’ tables in the temple, could that have been considered a “human” outburst or expression of anger?
 
Thanks for all your answers. It’s very insightful.

Most translations I checked uses the word “condemn” except for Knox which says “He has signed the death-warrant of sin in our nature.”

Using the RSV translation and changing the word “condemned” to “committed.” Site like this is a copy and paste job but I wonder why they have to change that word. I can’t find any bible translation using the word “committed” for this verse.
 
God_I_Love said:
A very deep question. So in a deeper understanding of Rom 8:3 ''For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do: sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he committed sin in the flesh ‘’ God is showing us a crucial aspect of Christ. Firstly that He became flesh, which, to the angels and humans, appeared sinful. This is why whenever Jesus asked ‘‘he who is without sin…’’ He is showing us what sin is. So to those whom viewed Him at the time He appeared sinful. Yet He wasn’t. He was innocent, sinless, without reproach. The Lamb of the world.
Now keeping the above in mind:
Consider the part you are having the most trouble reconciling. ‘‘For he committed sin in the flesh’’. F
Firstly, to consider the above, understanding of what sin is, is helpful. Sin is a turning away from God. Now could the Divine nature turn away from Himself? No. But the human nature could become unaware of it. This is sin. This is why He said ‘‘My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?’’. Because His human Spirit lost awareness of His divine. A separation (in perception).
Click to expand...
Interesting though I’m quite sure the Church teaches otherwise.
on_the_hill said:
Along these lines–when Jesus braided the cords into a whip and overturned the money changers’ tables in the temple, could that have been considered a “human” outburst or expression of anger?
Click to expand...
Yes, but that wasn’t sinful. Christ knew just how angry to become when He thought it was necessary, without it being sinful.
 
God_I_Love said:
A very deep question. So in a deeper understanding of Rom 8:3 ''For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do: sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he committed sin in the flesh ‘’ God is showing us a crucial aspect of Christ. Firstly that He became flesh, which, to the angels and humans, appeared sinful. This is why whenever Jesus asked ‘‘he who is without sin…’’ He is showing us what sin is. So to those whom viewed Him at the time He appeared sinful. Yet He wasn’t. He was innocent, sinless, without reproach. The Lamb of the world.
Now keeping the above in mind:
Consider the part you are having the most trouble reconciling. ‘‘For he committed sin in the flesh’’. F
Firstly, to consider the above, understanding of what sin is, is helpful. Sin is a turning away from God. Now could the Divine nature turn away from Himself? No. But the human nature could become unaware of it. This is sin. This is why He said ‘‘My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?’’. Because His human Spirit lost awareness of His divine. A separation (in perception).
Click to expand...
The Church teaches otherwise (see here and here).
on_the_hill said:
Along these lines–when Jesus braided the cords into a whip and overturned the money changers’ tables in the temple, could that have been considered a “human” outburst or expression of anger?
Click to expand...
Yes, but this wasn’t sinful. Christ knew just how angry to become when He thought it was necessary, without it being sinful.
 
ServusHumilis said:
The Church teaches otherwise (see here and here).
Click to expand...
What did I say that contradicted Church teaching? I have just stated what Paul taught. That he became sin for us. Now the part I’m guessing you are referring too (and if not correct me) is the last portion of my response.
‘‘Firstly, to consider the above, understanding of what sin is, is helpful. Sin is a turning away from God. Now could the Divine nature turn away from Himself? No. But the human nature could become unaware of it. This is sin. This is why He said ‘‘My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?’’. Because His human Spirit lost awareness of His divine. A separation (in perception).’’

Now what did His death and resurrection show? That despite His apparent death, the punishment for sin, He, by His own power, raised Himself. Meaning God never turned away from Jesus, and Jesus God. HE never sinned. But he did take on sin, the loss of awareness of the Divine, so that He could become like us.
 
That must either be a typo or they are using “committed” in the sense of committing someone to prison or something like that. Paul says, “tempted in all things like as we are, without sin.” Anyone who says that Christ sinned is guilty of blasphemy.
 
Looks like a typo to me.

The DRB translates it as :

*"For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh; God sending his own Son, in the likeness of sinful flesh and of sin, hath **condemned *sin in the flesh;"
Rom 8:3

Also for reference:

“And they changed the glory of the incorruptible God into the likeness of the image of a corruptible man, and of birds, and of four footed beasts, and of creeping things.”
Rom 1:23
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top